Radeon RX 6750 XT vs GeForce GT 430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 430 and Radeon RX 6750 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6750 XT outperforms GT 430 by a whopping 3359% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 978 | 51 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 51.96 |
| Power efficiency | 2.19 | 14.90 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 11 October 2010 (14 years ago) | 3 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 6750 XT has 103820% better value for money than GT 430.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 2560 |
| CUDA cores per GPU | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 2150 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 11.20 | 416.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2688 TFLOPS | 13.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 2.713" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 - 900 MHz (1600 - 1800 data rate) | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 - 28.8 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | HDMIVGA (optional)Mini HDMIDual Link DVI | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 4−5
−4025%
| 165
+4025%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−4250%
| 87
+4250%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−5000%
| 51
+5000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 19.75
−494%
| 3.33
+494%
|
| 1440p | 39.50
−526%
| 6.31
+526%
|
| 4K | 79.00
−634%
| 10.76
+634%
|
- RX 6750 XT has 494% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6750 XT has 526% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6750 XT has 634% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−2271%
|
166
+2271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−3200%
|
165
+3200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−5750%
|
110−120
+5750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1757%
|
130
+1757%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−1180%
|
64
+1180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−4500%
|
368
+4500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−14900%
|
150
+14900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−1329%
|
100−105
+1329%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−5750%
|
110−120
+5750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1457%
|
109
+1457%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−980%
|
54
+980%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−7850%
|
159
+7850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−308%
|
49
+308%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2986%
|
210−220
+2986%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3700%
|
304
+3700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−8000%
|
162
+8000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−11900%
|
120
+11900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−1244%
|
210−220
+1244%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−1329%
|
100−105
+1329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−35
−772%
|
270−280
+772%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−5750%
|
110−120
+5750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1271%
|
96
+1271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−880%
|
49
+880%
|
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−6450%
|
131
+6450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−850%
|
110−120
+850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3150%
|
260
+3150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−1244%
|
210−220
+1244%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 60−65 |
| World of Tanks | 9−10
−3789%
|
350−400
+3789%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−3100%
|
160−170
+3100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−9400%
|
95−100
+9400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2040%
|
100−110
+2040%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−2743%
|
190−200
+2743%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−550%
|
104
+550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−593%
|
104
+593%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4600%
|
180−190
+4600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−3800%
|
35−40
+3800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−593%
|
104
+593%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6700%
|
65−70
+6700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−531%
|
101
+531%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−9300%
|
90−95
+9300%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−5450%
|
110−120
+5450%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 142
+0%
|
142
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 186
+0%
|
186
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how GT 430 and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6750 XT is 4025% faster in 1080p
- RX 6750 XT is 4250% faster in 1440p
- RX 6750 XT is 5000% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 6750 XT is 14900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6750 XT is ahead in 45 tests (71%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (29%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.50 | 51.89 |
| Recency | 11 October 2010 | 3 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 250 Watt |
GT 430 has 410.2% lower power consumption.
RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 3359.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 430 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
